Kho Jabing

Joint statement on imminent execution of Kho Jabing

CLARIFICATION ADDED 15 May 2016

It has come to our attention that the President, while acknowledging Kho Jabing’s intention to file a fresh clemency petition, has taken the position that his decision to reject the previous clemency petition in October 2015 still stands. It is unclear if he will consider the new clemency petition once it is filed.

The death penalty is an irreversible punishment. A life once taken, cannot be returned. The fact that one High Court judge and two Judges of Appeal have expressed the opinion that the death penalty is not an appropriate punishment for Kho Jabing shows that there continues to be doubt a death sentence is justified in this case. It is on these grounds that we urge the President to grant clemency to Kho Jabing, and commute his death sentence to life imprisonment.

It is of utmost importance that this case not be rushed, and that the forthcoming clemency plea be given due deliberation. We call on the President of the Republic of Singapore to stay the execution scheduled for 20 May 2016 so as to allow a reasonable time for the consideration of Kho Jabing’s fresh clemency petition.

14 May 2016

For immediate release

We, the undersigned, are troubled by the imminent execution of Jabing Kho in Singapore, despite strong concerns over the development of his case. We believe there are strong grounds for President Tony Tan of the Republic of Singapore to grant clemency in this case.

The family of Sarawakian Jabing Kho, 31, received a letter from the Singapore Prison Service on 12 May 2016 informing them that his execution had been scheduled for 20 May 2016. Jabing was convicted of murder in 2011.

The announcement came as a shock to the family and all involved in campaigning for Jabing. We had been under the impression that the authorities would allow his lawyer to submit a fresh clemency appeal on his behalf after the criminal motion filed in late 2015 was dismissed in April this year. His lawyer had sent President Tony Tan a holding letter informing them of his intention to file a new clemency petition, and had been in the process of drafting it when the execution was scheduled.

On 13 May 2016, Jabing’s lawyer received a letter from the President saying that he would be willing to consider a clemency petition if it is filed, but will not be postponing the scheduled execution. Considering that past practice shows that the President usually takes three months before any decision regarding clemency is announced, we are concerned that this current state of affairs will leave the Cabinet and the President with insufficient time to properly consider a fresh plea from Jabing.

We do not condone Jabing’s crime, nor do we seek to erase the hurt he has caused to the victim’s family. Yet the course of Jabing’s case has been tumultuous and traumatic. Due to amendments made to Singapore’s mandatory death penalty regime and appeals lodged by the prosecution, Jabing had, over the years, been sentenced to death, then life imprisonment (with caning), then death again. This back-and-forth has taken a horrific toll not just on Jabing as the inmate, but his family.

Furthermore, one High Court judge and two Judges of Appeal had not believed that the death penalty was an appropriate punishment for Jabing Kho, as they felt that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that he had exhibited a “blatant disregard for human life”. (See Annex A, attached at the end of this statement, for relevant excerpts of the judges’ ruling.)

The death penalty does not simply exact an irreversible punishment, but also imposes emotional and psychological tolls on both the inmate and the family and we oppose it unconditionally. Having been re-sentenced twice, from death to life and back again, Jabing and his family have already been put through a deeply painful process. The knowledge that three respected and honourable judges hold the belief that the current punishment does not fit the crime simply makes the situation doubly hard to bear.

We believe that Jabing Kho’s case presents very strong and persuasive grounds for clemency, and that his death sentence should be immediately be set aside and commuted to life imprisonment as allowed by Singapore’s Constitution.

We therefore urge the Cabinet of Singapore to advise President Tony Tan to grant clemency to Jabing Kho without delay and re-establish a moratorium on executions as a first step towards the abolition of the death penalty.

Signed:

Local Organisations
Community Action Network
Free Community Church
Function8
Maruah
Sayoni
Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign (SADPC)
Think Centre
We Believe in Second Chances

Regional/International Organisations
Advocates Association of Sarawak
Amnesty International
Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network (ADPAN)
Center for Orang Asli Concerns
Center for Prisoner’s Rights Japan
Civil Rights Committee KLSCAH
Damn the Dams
Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (MADPET)
People’s Green Coalition
Reprieve Australia
Sembang-sembang Forum
Suara Rakyat Malaysia
Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty (TAEDP)
The Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence

Victims’ Family Organisations
Journey of Hope
Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights
Ocean

Individuals
Abdul Rashid bin Bakar, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
Atiqah bte Zaimi, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
Haminah bte Abu Bakar, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
Idros Ismail, brother of inmate on death row in Singapore
Jolene Tan, writer and activist
Kokila Annamalai, activist and community organiser
Letchumy Arumugam, mother of inmate on death row in Singapore
Marilyn Siew, activist
Mervin Mikhail
M Ravi, anti-death penalty activist
Osman bin Bakar, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
Priya Ratha Krishnan, fiancée of inmate on death row in Singapore
Sangeetha Thanapal, activist
Saraswathy Kataiah, sister of inmate on death row in Singapore
Sean Francis Han, activist
Sharmila Rockey, sister of inmate on death row in Singapore
Syida Ismail, sister of inmate on death row in Singapore
Tan Tee Seng, activist
Vanessa Ho, activist
Zaimi Bin Abdul Rahman, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore
Zarah bte Abu Bakar, relative of inmate on death row in Singapore

MEDIA CONTACT:
Kirsten Han, We Believe in Second Chances
kirsten@secondchances.asia

Rachel Zeng, Singapore Anti-Death Penalty Campaign
rachelabsinthe@gmail.com


ANNEX A

Comments from judges on Kho Jabing’s case

Justice Tay Yong Kwang, High Court, 2013:

After considering all the factors put forward by the parties, I am of the view that the death penalty is not the appropriate sentence for the convicted person for the following reasons:

(a) He was relatively young at 24 at the time of the offence in 2008…

(b) The convicted person’s choice and use of the piece of wood during the attack were, in the words of the Court of Appeal, “opportunistic and improvisational” and not part of a pre-arranged plan. Equally so was Galing’s use of his belt as a weapon;

(c) There was no clear sequence of events concerning the attack. There was no clear evidence that the convicted person went after the deceased from behind without warning and started hitting him on the head with the piece of wood. There was evidence that a struggle could have taken place first between Galing and the deceased before the convicted person stopped chasing Wu Jun and returned to assault the deceased.”

Justice Lee Seiu Kin, Court of Appeal, January 2015:

“…there is insufficient evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that Jabing had caused most of the fractures (either by multiple strikes or by two strikes with huge force).

…the evidence could only prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jabing had struck the deceased on the head twice. There is also doubt as to whether those two blows were the cause of most of the extensive injuries found in the skull, as opposed to causing it to fracture and resulting in death.”

“Based on the evidence that I have shown to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, I am of the view that the threshold is not crossed. Jabing, along with Galing, had intended to rob the deceased and his companion, Wu Jun. Jabing had approached the deceased from behind and struck him with two wicked blows to the head with the intention, at the very minimum, to incapacitate him. But he had stopped after that. It was not a case in which he had repeatedly hit the deceased after he was down, which would justify the conclusion that he had acted with viciousness and blatant disregard for human life. I must therefore, with the greatest of respect, disagree with the decision of the majority of this court to allow the appeal of the Public Prosecutor.”

Justice Woo Bih Li, Court of Appeal, January 2015:

“In the circumstances, and even though Jabing’s blows would have been of considerable force, it is in my view unsafe to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted in a way which exhibited a blatant disregard for human life. I would therefore dismiss the Prosecution’s appeal for capital punishment for Jabing.”

2 thoughts on “Joint statement on imminent execution of Kho Jabing”

  1. http://www.npr.org/…/supreme-court-overturns-death… Supreme Court Overturns Death Sentence In Judge Recusal Case The Supreme Court has ruled for the first time that judges must recuse themselves from reviewing cases in which they had a prior significant role.

    By a vote of 5-3, the justices ruled that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied a defendant a fair hearing in a death penalty case because the chief justice refused to disqualify himself, even though he had been the district attorney overseeing the case decades earlier.

    The court’s ruling came in the case of Terrence Williams, a violent teenager who from an early age was the victim of rampant and vicious beatings at home and sexual abuse from neighbors, older men, even a middle school teacher.

    Ultimately, at age 18, he was convicted in the brutal killing of a church deacon. The district attorney of Philadelphia at the time was Ronald Castille. He personally authorized seeking the death penalty in the case, and would later campaign for a seat on the state Supreme Court, noting that he’d sent 45 men to death row. In 2012, after nearly three decades of failed appeals, and five days before Williams was to be executed, a state court judge, after reviewing previously undisclosed files from the prosecutor’s office, issued a stay of execution on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. The judge concluded that the prosecution had hidden mitigating evidence that the murdered deacon had been molesting boys — a fact relevant to Williams’ post-conviction claim that the deacon had long been sexually molesting him.

    The state immediately appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, where, by then, former DA Castille was chief justice. The defense moved to have Castille recuse himself, but he refused, and the six-justice court then reinstated the death penalty by a unanimous vote.

    On Thursday, the Supreme Court threw out that decision. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, declared that Castille’s refusal to step aside had deprived the defendant of a fair hearing and denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the constitution.

    “Bias is easy to attribute to others and difficult to discern in oneself,” Kennedy said. Therefore there must be an objective standard that applies routinely, he said, instead of having to determine whether actual bias exists.

    The objective rule announced by the High Court, holds that “an unconstitutional potential for bias exists when the same person serves as both accuser and adjudicator” in a significant aspect of a case — here, the prosecutor’s decision to seek the death penalty.

    Kennedy rejected the notion that because the state Supreme Court had been unanimous in reinstating the death penalty, the outcome would have been the same even if Castille had not participated. It could just as well mean, said Kennedy, that Castille was able to persuade the other judges to accept his decision.

    That said, most experts seem to believe that this case was something of an anoma

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *